The salvos were very well grouped, accurate and rapid with the 4 x 2 arrangement. For elevations up to 16,5*, corresponding to ranges up to 25km, the guns could deliver 3 shells/minute.RF wrote:There is an irony here - if there is a disadvantage in firepower, with no real regard to the 35,000 ton weight restriction, why not beef up the firepower? Say with triple turrets of 15 inch and triple turrets of 5 inch DP in place of the 5.9 inch and 4.1 inch batteries? That could have been done without substantially reducing armour protection? Or speed?alecsandros wrote: They devoted much more attention to protection than to offensive power... knowing the ship would fight at a disadvandtage in numbers, so they armored it as best as possible to ensure survivability in hostile waters.
Vertical perforation was very good, and combined with the accuracy and rapid straddling obtained with the 4x2 arrangement, it meant death to most likely opponents...
And there is redundancy... One hit could take out 25% of the ship's battery if it had 4 turrets, or 33% if it had 3.
The Germans usualy opted for spreading of the armament, to last as long as possible (it's the same in the secondaries - 12 x 150mm + 16 x 105mm - more than any other battleship)
It is very interesting to observe that all German battleships constructed or planned featured the 4 x 2 guns arrangement.
Baden class, Bismarck class, H-class (H-39 to H-44)...
Yes, 16" would have been better, at least in terms of internal destruction caused by the shells, if not necessarily in terms of perforation. Hitler wanted the 15" changed with 16" ' ers, somewhere in 1938-39, but work was to advanced to make the modifications required.
The Japanese would probably have built a 50.000 tons ship with 8x16" guns, 400mm belt and 150mm decks covering 50% of the waterline, and 30-31kts, with 3-4000 tons of oil reserves.
The Americans may have built a 50.000 ton ship with 12 x 16" guns, 300mm internal belt inclined at 19*, 150mm decks covering 50% of the waterline, and a speed of 28-29kts...